JimBob2232

Nah, this is when the patriots let you THINK you have a chance....right before they create a turnover and brady runs a 8 minute drive for a TD. Its the NFL conspiracy to make the games interesting, yet letting NE win

You saw that too eh? Damn. The best part was the announcers. "Jennifer trying to maintain her composure" <scan in to cards (cleavage)> ..."so are we"

This one says "Colleen Pavelka plans to catch the game on the plasma screen TV in her hospital room, " What hospital room has a plasma TV? http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/6391994

Yeah, im sure red sox fans would conceed a WS championship to the yankees too

I am about to become the biggest bears fan in Virginia

Yeah, I dont believe ANYTHING the house says.

True, but in 2008, there will be 12 democrats defending their seats, and 21 republicans defending their seats. Its much more likely the republicans will lose some seats in the senate. Also possible retirees (D: Lautenberg NJ, R: Ted Stevens, AK, R: Cochran, MI, R: Domenici, NM, R: Inhofe, OK, R: Warner, VA) lean heavily to the republican side making many more republican seats potentially open. The house, I would imagine, would go the way of the national election. So, I see the senate staying democratic, and the house and president going to the same party.

Funny part to me is how big a deal the democrats made over "one party rule" and how bad it was for the country to have the same party controlling all 3 branches of government. GUESS WHAT! If a democrat wins the presidency...THATS WHAT WE WILL HAVE! Wonder if the republican strategists will try to use this at all. Might not be a bad plan actually. Somewhat admit what you did was wrong, while at the same time using democrats own words against them

Yeah, he his black and good looking.

While I agree, that conservatives wont vote for her, the problem is that there are few (if any) credible true conservatives running on the republican side. Unless there is a big "anti-hilary" vote, I see this as a big problem. People may choose to stay home, because once again, the lesser of two evils will be running. That said, She may not win the nomination. Obama is a much stronger candidate due to his personality and lack of a record. (Ironic that helps...). But I just dont see McCain, Guiliani, Romney or some of these lesser known candidates running the table too easily. Dark Horse: Ron Paul

I think your sarcasm here is actually correct. Think about it 1) Government employees are inefficient because they cant get fired 2) Teachers get complacent once they have tenure 3) Politicians should have term limits & we dislike long terms 4) You study harder when the test is tomorrow than you do when its next month 5) Grilled Salmon tastes better when cooked on charcoal It all makes sense

Couple interesting articles Baseball - http://pages.nyu.edu/~oh201/topics/davidfinal.pdf Basketball http://www.hoopsworld.com/cgi-bin/news/exe...1&printer=1 Both seem to indicate players in contract years do in fact perform better

This is how you succeed in many jobs. Just keep moving around, proving your worth every step of the way. At some point, someone likes you enough to bring you in for a promotion. Keep lateraling around.... eventually you wind up on top.

Might not be a bad investment. In 2012 when Jeb runs, you might be able to cash in

The real question: what is ethan albrights score next year?

Lets put this to the test: 5 Random Players (Post 1993, Free Agency Era) Issac Bruce Steve McNair Ty Law Ray Lewis Corey Dillon Okay, someone smarter than me run the numbers...lets see how 5 random players turn out.

I never understood this. Apparently there is alot more to these auditions than they show on TV. So after they make fun of them profusely, they have them sing silly songs to make these montages? Just seems odd.

Thats certainly your opinion, which you are more than entitled to have. You said you had the right to be free from religion. In my mind, this means you have the right not to be around it. Not to see it, not to hear it. I dont go around tryin to make french fries illegal and ban them from every public venue. So, in your perfect world, churches would be allowed to publicly endorse a candidate for political office. They would be allowed to accept government subsides, file for bankruptcy protection, be able to purchase companies and force all employees of the for-profit company to pay union dues to the church, and in turn, use that money to support the political candidate of the church's choice, all the while maintaining a legitimate non-profit status and paying no taxes to state federal or local goverments. Is this your plan? Look, there is a reason religious orgainazations have an exemption. Its called the constitution.

Athiesm is also a religion. You contradict yourself. I can mention God, but you have the right not to hear me say God? What if I dont like french fries? Do I have the freedom to not see French Fries? I disagree churches are self-serving, but assuming they are, so what? They should not be government funded or controlled or be treated any differently by the government than any other religious organization. And no, I dont feel only people believing in a higher power can be moral. But I do believe that morality, even for those who do not believe, is based on a religious undertone and history.

Not sure what you consider a bust, but of the 20 "Busts" you mention 10 of them have had 1000 yard seasons, one is only 2 years into his career, at least two had career ending injuries. I see 9 guys i would label as "Busts". And even then, Chris Perry and Ron Dayne are questionable IMO. Point remains, there are a few elite backs, most of the rest of the RBs are the same. They are pretty much a dime a dozen and any can have just as good a year as the next guy.

Seriously. Name a team with (clearly) a worse running back than mcgahee. Possibilites Jets Browns ....crickets...crickets...I cant think of any more. While there are clearly very good backs in the league, there are a glut of average backs. He has no leverage here. This is ridiculous.

I tend to agree with your first point. Minority groups can occasionally oppress the majority. Doesn't happen often, an usually happens in the presence of extreme amounts of money or political favors that plague our system. Its all calculated for political gain, and thats the real issue. On the second point, I dont know that you can really compare human beings to cats or ants. Many species are known to eat their young, and some species routinely kill other adult members of the same species, without any real visible disdain from other members of the population. I tend to think that human beings are so complex and so much more developed than other species to make this a worthwhile comparison. But the point I was trying to bring up really wasnt that morality is or is not religious based, though thats where we went and I understand why, but my point really was that its difficult, if not impossible, to legislate morality. What one person considers as immoral may be perfectly acceptable by another. Clearly murder is an extreme case which is generally accepted by all, but how about stealing the cash drawer out of a walmart cash register to pay for your dying sons kidney dialysis? What defines moral behavior? How do we as a society develop a set of laws which are acceptable to everyones moral standards? Its a very difficult discussion to have without injecting religion into the conversation as a baseline for morality.

Wow, I wrote a (fairly) well thought out and non-controversial post and you come back at me with "elitist crap". I really shouldn't be surprised knowing this board, but for some reason it amazes me every time. Im not saying you have to be religious (note, at no point in my post did i mention a particular religion). You have just as much a right to not believe as I do to believe. But you have no right to cry about religious persecution if I mention the "G" word in public. But I guess you're right. My position is definitely self-serving and elitist.

Interesting questions. I will start by saying that I think the most pressing issue in America today is that any segment of the population can be held captive by another, larger, segment of the population. Whether that small population be blacks, hispanics, the rich, the poor or even smokers, everything today is being played (by both parties) for maximum political gain. Every decision is being made with a calculated decision on how to gain the most votes in the next election. This leads to politicians trying to pander to the majority opinion without regard or even thought as to the right decision for the country. Despite all of GWBs faults, I at least respect him for being able to counter this very important point in most manners of his presidency, even if he is wrong on the particular issue at hand. Democracy will fail if the majority get their way on every issue. As for the governments role in morality...this needs to be better defined. What is morality if not religion based? If not for religion, how do we know murder or adultery is wrong? This is why i think it is a mistake to continuously turn our back on the religous history of this country. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Immigration - This country champions being a melting pot. Thats fine. But we have laws. You want in...welcome! But follow our laws to get here. It amazes me that people will break the very laws that make the country great just to get here. It is a role of government to protect our borders. You make a couple other points which I dont really care to comment on, but I do feel our democracy is failing us. But not because of the things we typically think of as the reason. We have career politicians (by and large) only care about their political future. Lets install term limits and see where that gets us. This track we are on is not working.

Agree with all. Only issue I have is that willis is no better than a rookie RB IMO. IF we can trade him for a 2nd round pick, and take a RB there, I wouldnt be against it. But i dont think we can for the reasons stated here.